Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The president of a company signed a commercial credit application, which contained language immediately above the signature line stating that the individual signing the contract personally guaranteed amounts owed to the vendor. The company defaulted on the balance of the account, and the vendor filed suit against both the company and the president. The trial court granted summary judgment to the vendor, holding that the president had signed the contract both personally and in a representative capacity. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the president had signed the contract only in a representative capacity. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the application contained clear and unambiguous language sufficient to bind the president as an individual guarantor of the contract.

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether a claim under Colorado law for civil theft of a copyrightable work required a trial court to instruct the jury on principles of federal copyright law. Petitioner Steward Software hired Respondent Richard Kopcho to develop and market a new software program. Steward never entered into a written agreement governing the ownership of the software with Holonyx, Inc. (one of Respondent's multiple corporate entities) or Respondent. By the time the software was ready for testing, the relationship between the parties had become strained. Steward refused to make further payments and under Respondent's direction, Holonyx locked Steward out of the software code and refused to turn it over. Holonyx then filed a copyright registration for the software with the U.S. Copyright Office, listing the software's author a new corporation Respondent controlled called Ruffdogs Software, Inc. Steward sued Respondent for breach of contract and civil theft. Before trial, the parties tendered proposed jury instructions; one of Steward's proposed instructions pertained to the ownership and registration of copyrightable works. The trial court determined that copyright law did not pertain to Steward's civil theft claim and rejected the tendered instruction. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed that ownership of the copyright in the code was irrelevant. The Court thus concluded the trial court correctly refused to instruct the jury on the principles of copyright law. The court reversed the appellate court and reinstated the trial court's opinion.

Idaho Development, LLC (Idaho Development) advanced $1,100,000.00 to Teton View Golf Estates, LLC (Teton View), a joint venture made up of Idaho Development as a 33.3% owner and Rothchild Properties, LLC as a 66.7% owner. Teton View granted Idaho Development a promissory note secured by a deed of trust that specified a set monthly payment and stated that the entire amount was to be paid off in ninety days. Idaho Development filed an action to foreclose on the deed of trust after Teton View failed to satisfy the promissory note. DePatco, Inc., another lienholder on the property, filed a motion for summary judgment to recharacterize Idaho Development’s advance as a capital contribution, which was granted. Idaho Development appealed, arguing that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether the entire $1,100,000 advance was intended to be a capital contribution. Idaho Development also appealed a subsequent summary judgment brought by ZBS, LLC, which relied on the recharacterization determination in holding that ZBS’ lien on the property had priority over Idaho Development’s lien. Upon review of the trial court's recharacterization of Idaho Development's lien, the Supreme Court concluded that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether the entire $1,100,000 was intended to be a capital contribution, the district court therefore improperly granted summary judgment. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

This action involved a challenge to the decision by a purchaser to terminate a share purchase agreement and related consulting services agreement based on the purchaser's contention that certain conditions precedent to closing those agreements had not been met by the seller. Purchaser brought an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, seeking a determination that it properly terminated the share purchase and consulting services agreements and was entitled to the return of its down payment on the purchase price from escrow. The court found that the agreements between the parties unambiguously provided that the Development Fees were contingent on the commencement of actual development of the projects and that the purchaser was under no obligation to develop the projects. Therefore, the court granted purchaser's motion for partial summary judgment on that issue and held that seller was not entitled to any Development Fees as a result of purchaser's decision to terminate the transaction.

Under one contract, City collected solid waste and took it to a waste services company's (Company) transfer station. Company hauled the waste to a landfill. After this contract expired, Company charged the city $42.50 per ton for temporarily accepting its waste at the transfer station. Company later increased City's rate to $60 per ton. Under a second contract, Company performed disposal services for City and charged the same rate it charged under the first contract. After the first contract expired, Company increased City's rate to $60 per ton under the second contract. City sued Company, alleging it was entitled to recover the payments that Company had received for disposal services at the rate of $42.50 per ton. The district court entered judgment for City. The Supreme Court (1) concluded that the parties were operating under an implied contract when Company temporarily accepted City's waste at the transfer station; (2) affirmed the district court's restitution award for the full amount of the overpayments, concluding that Company was unjustly enriched because Company obtained City's assent to its unilateral modification of the price for services through economic duress; and (3) reversed the court's determination of the reasonable value of Company's services. Remanded.

Wild Rose Entertainment and Signature Management Group (SMG) entered into an agreement that delineated the parties' relationship with regard to future state casino projects. After Wild Rose was awarded a gaming license to develop a casino in Emmetsburg, it terminated the agreement. SMG sued Wild Rose for breach of contract, and a jury found Wild Rose breached the agreement. During the Emmetsburg action, Wild Rose was awarded a gaming license to develop a casino in Clinton. SMG then filed a separate action against Wild Rose, alleging that it breached paragraph 5A of the agreement by failing to negotiate in good faith with SMG for the management of the Clinton casino. Paragraph 5A was litigated in the Emmetsburg action. The district court granted summary judgment for Wild Rose, concluding the doctrine of claim preclusion barred SMG's current claim. The court of appeals affirmed after finding Wild Rose repudiated the entire agreement, which required SMG to seek damages for all remaining rights of performance under the contract in the first lawsuit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Wild Rose repudiated the agreement, and (2) the doctrine of claim preclusion barred the action.

Michael McCrary sued Ivanof Bay Village (Ivanof Bay) and its president, Edgar Shangin, under two contracts, alleging breaches of the implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing. The superior court dismissed the suit based on sovereign immunity. McCrary appealed the sovereign immunity ruling, arguing that even though the United States Department of Interior lists Ivanof Bay as a federally recognized Indian tribe, Ivanof Bay has not been formally designated as a federally recognized tribe. The Supreme Court previously concluded Alaska Native tribes recognized by Congress or the Executive Branch are sovereign under federal law, and McCrary did not demonstrate that conclusion should be overturned. The Court therefore affirmed the superior court's dismissal of McCrary's suit.

In late April 2006 Samuel Sengul leased a commercial storefront in downtown Juneau to Robert Manus, who was acting on behalf of CMS Franklin, Inc. The building was under construction when Sengul and CMS entered into the lease agreement, but the lease provided that Sengul would deliver the property to CMS in a specified improved condition by the time the lease commenced on June 1. The lease also included a rent abatement provision, which was at issue in this case. The building was not in improved condition until approximately June 8. Manus did not pay any rent, nor did he mention the rent abatement provision when he took possession of the building. Sengul finally demanded rent in late July, but Manus refused to pay, claiming abatement. In September, Manus had still not paid any rent, and Sengul put a lock on CMS's store door and placed signs demanding rent in the store windows. Manus had the lock cut off, but began to move the inventory out of the store, vacating it and returning the keys to Sengul two days after the lockout. Sengul then sued CMS and Manus for unpaid rent. The superior court determined that CMS had waived its right to rent abatement and owed Sengul unpaid rental amounts for the time that Manus had occupied the building. But the court also concluded that Sengul's lockout amounted to constructive eviction and awarded CMS damages as a refund for work performed on the premises that CMS was unable to benefit from after the constructive eviction. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed with the superior court that Sengul's actions constituted constructive eviction, but the Court disagreed that CMS waived its entitlement to have the rent abated. The case was remanded for the superior court to recalculate the damages owed to CMS.

Plaintiffs sued defendant in contract and tort, alleging that defendant failed to take necessary precautions to protect its premises from water damage. At issue on appeal was the trial judge's decision not to grant prejudgment interest on the amounts that were awarded by the jury to plaintiffs. The court held that plaintiffs were entitled to prejudgment interest as a matter of right and remanded to the Superior Court to determine the amount of prejudgment interest owed.

After Kenneth Middleton was convicted of first-degree murder but before a judgment was entered against him in a wrongful-death suit, Kenneth conveyed property he owned in Arkansas to his brother. The sale was found to be fraudulent and was set aside by decree. Appellees, several individuals, filed a petition for writ of scire facias more than ten years later to allow more time to sell the property in an effort to satisfy the Missouri judgment. Appellants, the Middleton brothers, filed a motion for summary judgment, which the circuit court dismissed. Appellants subsequently filed a motion for clarification as well as a notice of appeal. Appellants' motion was subsequently deemed denied. Appellees then filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that a second notice of appeal was required after the denial of the consolidated motion for clarification. The Supreme Court denied Appellees' motion, holding that the notice of appeal in this case was effective.